Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Following up on this morning’s item about just how foolish Bush is to rely on the Vietnam war as a historical model for Iraq, it’s worth noting that some historians and related experts are weighing in on the president’s comparison.

Historian Robert Dallek, who has written about the comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, accused Bush of twisting history. “It just boggles my mind, the distortions I feel are perpetrated here by the president,” he said in a telephone interview.

“We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we couldn’t work our will,” he said.

“What is Bush suggesting? That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough? That’s nonsense. It’s a distortion,” he continued. “We’ve been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It’s a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.”

...

Well.

I took a class with Professor Robert Dallek my senior year. He admitted in class that he was a “died in the wool” party guy.

He wasn’t talking about the Republican party.

Mr. Dallek also frequently went on anti-Cheney tirades.

I respect his research, and his long career, but his is hardly the impartial, objective professional opinion that can be held up to the light.

"As he gazed around him the youth felt a flash of astonishment at the blue, pure sky and the sun gleaming on the trees and fields. It was surprising that Nature had gone tranquilly on with her golden process in the midst of so much devilment."